From nobody Wed May 17 12:53:56 2023 Return-Path: X-Original-To: bpf@ietf.org Delivered-To: bpf@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE62C14CEF9; Wed, 17 May 2023 12:53:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: bpf-chairs@ietf.org, bpf@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 10.3.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Warren Kumari Message-ID: <168435323329.42739.17683400505999009280@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 12:53:53 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Bpf] Warren Kumari's Yes on charter-ietf-bpf-00-03: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: bpf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39 List-Id: Discussion of BPF/eBPF standardization efforts within the IETF List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 17 May 2023 19:53:53 -0000 Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for charter-ietf-bpf-00-03: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-bpf/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I have some comments -- please note that these really are just comments; feel free to bend, fold, mutilate or ignore them. None of these are worth slowing this down over... 1: "technology with origins in the Linux kernel that can safely run programs in a privileged context such as the operating system kernel." -- I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the use of 'safely' here. It might be that you can run programs in a privileged context without the machine going boom - but you can also run "dangerous" programs that e.g hide attack traffic, or simply drop all traffic, or... Can we perhaps drop the word? 2: "There is currently no formal standard for eBPF and no clear scope for what is part of eBPF and what is not." -- True, but that's just a problem statement. The charter sort of implies that it will make a standard, but it doesn't really imply that it will clarify the scope. 3: "The working group shall not adopt new work until these documents have progressed to working group last call." - do we really have to prohibit this in the charter? The "these documents" is quite hand-wavy, and it seems unproductive to prohibit (in charter) adopting new work if it is needed. If the WG discovers that it needs e.g a terminology document to make things make sense, it seems like they should be able to do so (perhaps after discussing with the AD). 4: OCD Nit - Some of the bullets (1,2,6,7,8,9) start with uppercase, some (3,4,5) are lowercase. If you make any other changes, can you please also fix these (so I can stop twitching :-))